Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But why does she have to take chemotherapy as her medical treatment what if she wants to do holistic healing or alternaitve medicine?
If she wishes to try those methods, she may as well put the noose around her neck right now. I understand she is scared, but she needs to suck it up and accept that unless she chemo, she will die.
If she has the right to refuse treatment once she turns 18, then she can have treatment for a few months, have docs tell her it is working, then stop treatment, try alternative medicine and die.
I do not believe the government should ever force anyone to use a medical procedure, against their will.Chemo generally has a success rate of about 5%...and the establishment considers success when one is cancer free for only 5 years after treatment.The issue here is the state FORCING someone to do something.
And besides, chemo is a failed treatment that seldom works, but it does generate lots of wealth for the medical establishment.
You are wrong. Chemo is VERY effective in treating Hodgkin's.I get a real kick out of you armchair physicians who have NO clue what you are talking about. Lol! Where did you get your medical degree, a Cracker Jack box?
Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment Seattle Children s Hospital
It may be effective on Hodgkins, but on most cancers it not only does not work, it often kills the patient.
I tend not to believe any claims by establishment healthcare.
Please research the Budwig Protocol....Dr. Budwig had over 90% success rate on all types of cancers...of course the establishment silenced her. Her treatment involved improving the immune system rather than destroying it, which is what chemo does. She found that cancer can not thrive in a alkaline body, but thrives in an acidic body. Her treatment protocol is very inexpensive to implement...which is why they silenced her.
Yes, it has a high success rate in this particular type of cancer. Also, sometimes chemo and radiation is only used for palliative therapy, to shrink a tumor, etc. Such as a tumor in your esophagus that is interfering with your ability to swallow food or to breathe. Chemotherapy is not always meant to be curative.
This is all completely dependent upon the type of cancer and how advanced the cancer is. There are times when doctors do not recommend chemo or radiation, and they recommend that the patient be on hospice. I type about that PLENTY of times. Sometimes, it's the patient who wants to have every treatment available.
I agree that it should be a patient's choice, but this girl just sounds like perhaps she is not right, and I imagine that going through a traumatic situation can do that to a person, especially one so young, but the chances are she will be cured from the chemo.
No exceptions.
Allowing the government to do this, is granting them too much power and when the scumbags in government obtain too much power, history tells us watch out.
Okay, but apparently, according to the laws in that particular state, she is still a minor and is a ward of the state.
If she were an adult, I would agree with her.
Needless to say, its really stupid to compare it to abortion. Instead of the usual derailing of a worthwhile discussion, start your own thread.
No, it's not "needless to say". Explain to us why you can trumpet, "Her body, her choice!" when it comes to scraping a baby out of the uterus, even if the female in question is in junior high school, but when it comes to any other medical procedure, suddenly she's "not an adult" and has no right to decide what she wants done to her body. SHE'S the one who's going to have to endure the pain and misery of chemotherapy treatments, not the judge or you or anyone else. Why doesn't she get to decide that she doesn't want that?
I had breast cancer.
Doesn't matter. HER BODY, HER CHOICE. Her mother agrees with the daughter. They want to try other methods but the court is FORCING her to do chemo. At 17. Again, were YOU still a child in your own mind at 17?
I think not.
Other methods will kill her. She will die without chemo and I am not sure she understands that.
advertisers sell products. campaigns run candidates in elections. most laws do not come out of ad campaigns or political campaigns. And you were not really upset with any specific law, you were upset with the legal ruling.
You have not said you would do away with laws that allow and demand the state to step in to protect children
I said I would lower to the age that is able to decide medical procedures for themselves like an abortion. Whatever age that is and I would make the law be they can make decisions for themself.
If a young adult at 17 was able to make medical decisions, why not sign a mortgage? Why not a credit card?
agree or disagree, there are reasons abortions are treated differently and you have no considered them. you are saying you'd design law by feelings and emotion. a recipe for disaster on a grand scale
Some do, especially if they marry up
The reasons I am given is so they don't self harm.
No I am saying I would design the law to be consistent.
You just don't agree with the things I think would make it consistent shrug.
I listed them enough
prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco legal: pot illegal why?
Right to choose for your own body, abortion, assisted suicide, boob job, face lift, gender reassignment, refuse medical treatment.
Age this should occur, personally 18 for all of it. But if that's not going to happen then reduce the age to be the exact age allowed to make a medical decision to have an abortion.
Anyway I'm tired so goodnight
While I personally do not agree with abortion. That is an entirely different scenario. This young woman is suffering from an illness that has a highly successful cure rate, if you only take the treatments! Abortion . . . well, while I'm personally against an abortion and would never have one myself, do we want a bunch of under 18 year old moms out there? As a person who had a child at a young age, I can attest to the fact that it is not an easy life, you make a lot of sacrifices and give up a lot of freedoms. IOW, childhood is over. The abortion question is a LOT more complicated IMO.
Ahh, so the question really is whether or not YOU think it's a good idea. You've decided that chemotherapy is good for her, and she's silly to not agree, therefore she should have no right to be "silly" with her own body. Oh, and having a horrific, life-threatening illness isn't an "end to childhood" - assuming one considers almost-18 to be childhood, anyway - the way getting pregnant and deciding to kill it does.
It's not a different scenario in any respect, except that in one case your busybody, know-it-all interference agrees, and in the other, it doesn't. In both cases, it's all about "allowing people the choice" to agree with you, or agree with you.
I had breast cancer.
Doesn't matter. HER BODY, HER CHOICE. Her mother agrees with the daughter. They want to try other methods but the court is FORCING her to do chemo. At 17. Again, were YOU still a child in your own mind at 17?
I think not.
Other methods will kill her. She will die without chemo and I am not sure she understands that.
Again, why? Because she doesn't agree with you, ergo she "doesn't understand"? Have you ever noticed that a lot of people in the world understand things very clearly, and actually base their decision that you're full of shit on that understanding?
Same question. Why is it your decision, or anyone else's, what she should "understand"?
If she were an adult, I would agree with her.
Needless to say, its really stupid to compare it to abortion. Instead of the usual derailing of a worthwhile discussion, start your own thread.
No, it's not "needless to say". Explain to us why you can trumpet, "Her body, her choice!" when it comes to scraping a baby out of the uterus, even if the female in question is in junior high school, but when it comes to any other medical procedure, suddenly she's "not an adult" and has no right to decide what she wants done to her body. SHE'S the one who's going to have to endure the pain and misery of chemotherapy treatments, not the judge or you or anyone else. Why doesn't she get to decide that she doesn't want that?
I can't see the two are comparable. A perfectly healthy teen having a baby to getting chemotherapy for treatment of a deadly disease? Sorry, but I don't see this analogy working at all. These are two entirely different things. For one thing, the teen who is pregnant and wishes to get an abortion, it is because she is obviously not yet ready to be a mother and dedicate her ENTIRE life to a child at such a young age. The other scenario is if you don't have chemotherapy for your disease, you will more than likely die from it eventually.
I can understand parents not wanting their child to have a child which could potentially ruin her life. I cannot understand parents not wanting their child to have treatment for a potentially deadly disease.
If she were an adult, I would agree with her.
Needless to say, its really stupid to compare it to abortion. Instead of the usual derailing of a worthwhile discussion, start your own thread.
No, it's not "needless to say". Explain to us why you can trumpet, "Her body, her choice!" when it comes to scraping a baby out of the uterus, even if the female in question is in junior high school, but when it comes to any other medical procedure, suddenly she's "not an adult" and has no right to decide what she wants done to her body. SHE'S the one who's going to have to endure the pain and misery of chemotherapy treatments, not the judge or you or anyone else. Why doesn't she get to decide that she doesn't want that?
I can't see the two are comparable. A perfectly healthy teen having a baby to getting chemotherapy for treatment of a deadly disease? Sorry, but I don't see this analogy working at all. These are two entirely different things. For one thing, the teen who is pregnant and wishes to get an abortion, it is because she is obviously not yet ready to be a mother and dedicate her ENTIRE life to a child at such a young age. The other scenario is if you don't have chemotherapy for your disease, you will more than likely die from it eventually.
Of course you can't see the comparison, because your operative premise is that it's your right to know what's best for people, rather than the autonomy and independent choice you like to cloak your opinions in when it suits you.
Let me help you out: Her body, her choice. That means if she gets to make life-changing decisions about her uterus, she gets to make them about all her other body parts, too. You want to base this on seriousness of the situation all of a sudden? Because there've been many, many times we've been told that abortion HAS to be the woman's choice alone PRECISELY because "she's the one who has to live with it". Well, this girl is the one who has cancer, not you. She's the one who has to suffer the consequences of any decision, not you.
They're only "entirely different things" because you happen to disagree with her, and you think your position is always the only valid one.
I can understand parents not wanting their child to have a child which could potentially ruin her life. I cannot understand parents not wanting their child to have treatment for a potentially deadly disease.
Who says you understanding something is a requirement in other people's life decisions?
I can understand parents not wanting their child to have a child which could potentially ruin her life. I cannot understand parents not wanting their child to have treatment for a potentially deadly disease.
Who says you understanding something is a requirement in other people's life decisions?
I suddenly thought of Quantum Windbag and it made me feel very sad. He had a battle with cancer you know.
The center in the UK is not doing what Dr. Budwig's research clearly discovered. You need to do more research. Her work proved her protocol cures cancer.Chemo generally has a success rate of about 5%...and the establishment considers success when one is cancer free for only 5 years after treatment.The issue here is the state FORCING someone to do something.
And besides, chemo is a failed treatment that seldom works, but it does generate lots of wealth for the medical establishment.
You are wrong. Chemo is VERY effective in treating Hodgkin's.
Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment Seattle Children s Hospital
It may be effective on Hodgkins, but on most cancers it not only does not work, it often kills the patient.
I tend not to believe any claims by establishment healthcare.
Please research the Budwig Protocol....Dr. Budwig had over 90% success rate on all types of cancers...of course the establishment silenced her. Her treatment involved improving the immune system rather than destroying it, which is what chemo does. She found that cancer can not thrive in a alkaline body, but thrives in an acidic body. Her treatment protocol is very inexpensive to implement...which is why they silenced her.
The success rate of chemo depends on the type and stage of cancer so to claim it's 5% is idiotic and misleading. Some cancers can be cured, others managed as a chronic condition with years of decent-quality of life. Many treatments go beyond just chemo to kill cancer, but chemo to stimulate immune system, or marshalling different aspects of the body organic to attack the cancer. Treatments are generally "silenced" (ie NOT validated) because they are snake oil. Medical treatments have very stiff protocols to pass before they are accepted as treatments. Snake oil treatments do not - they require only "testimonials" for evidence.
It's a person's free choice as to what they wish for treatment - but they at least ought to have accurate information in order to make an informed choice.
My boss has beat colon cancer twice through chemo and surgury and is now ten years out. Yes, the chemo left some permanent problems - neuropathy for example, but he does not regret it and every year cancer free is a gift. My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000, and including in a lymphnode. She opted to enroll in a study that was looking at different chemo/surgical/radiation protocols. 15 years later she is still cancer free. Again - it could come back and chemo has some permanent side effects, but she has no regrets and she made informed decisions. Every year is a gift. Quite often heart disease, diabetes, highblood pressure, immune mediated diseases and mental illness' - can't be "cured" but they can be managed for a long time with quality of life. Some cancers will fall into that category. Some cancers will be cured, but to claim that chemo is a "failed therapy" is just plain ignorant.
Wrong. The OVERALL success rate, using standard procedures, is less than 5%. Do not believe anything from the medical establishment. Doing no treatment would likely result in higher success rates.
You can not go with an "overall success rate" and lump cancers all as one disease because they are really a multitude of diseases with symptoms in common.
The focus of mainstream medicine and the pharmaceutical industry is not about finding effective treatments, it is about money.
Dr. Johanna Budwig left us in 2003, at the age of 95, after being nominated six times for the Nobel Prize in medicine. She cured cancers in "terminally ill" patients in her homeland of Germany; even patients that the establishment had surrendered to fate, and claimed were "untreatable". She did not just cure specific or rare cancers. She cured all types of cancer, and she did it relatively quickly, cheaply, easily, and permanently; using only non-toxic ingredients, which had no adverse effects. Her medicine actually made her patients stronger. Her cure rate was over 90%, including the worst terminal cases. Dr. Budwig's success greatly contrasts the fact that the life-long cure rate of standard procedures averages less than 4%, and that the standard therapies are known to fuel future cancers and other diseases.
The Industry-Suppressed Budwig Protocol or How To Cure Cancer With Cottage Cheese
What is the Budwig diet Cancer Research UK
There is no reliable scientific evidence to show that the Budwig diet (or any highly specific diet) helps people with cancer. It is important to make sure that you have a well balanced diet when you are ill, especially if you are undernourished. We know from research that a healthy, well balanced diet can reduce the risk of cancer.
If people want to try it as a complimentary therapy - more power to them. There is some preliminary research that indicates things like flax may be beneficial in treating some forms of cancer but nothing stating "cures". To make false claims about it deliberately misleads people.
And if the chemo and radiation does not kill you, while they are giving it to you, it likely will later in life.
Cancer survivors have higher death risk for decades Reuters
People with cancer have choices to make depending on the cancer. With many cancers - chemo can add years to life. Even if they are at higher risk for other cancers later on - they have years that they would not have had and a better quality of life. It all depends on the type of cancer.
Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.
Sorry, but her mother isn't "denying her medical care". Her mother is acceding to her choice about her body. And the state is superceding BOTH Cassandra's choice AND that of her legal guardian to say it knows better for her.
Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates medical neglect. But, hey.........thanks for playing.
Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates the patient's lack of desire fo rthe treatment. But hey, thanks for proudly waving your hypocrite flag.
It's called medical neglect. You don't have to like it but there it is.
It's called hypocrisy. You don't have to like it, but it's all over you, anyway.
